Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:43:33 12/02/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 02, 2005 at 17:47:00, Tony Nichols wrote: >On December 02, 2005 at 17:21:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>It is time to stop this now. The above is utter nonsense. We don't "search" >>hash tables. Larger hash tables do not take longer to search, because we just >>don't search them. We randomly probe into them and either hit or miss, so the >>size has absolutely no effect other than larger sizes hold more information >>without requiring that older data be overwritten sooner. >> >>You are quoting nonsense... > > >Hello, > > Is it safe to assume that you can't have too much hash? I mean, as long as you >have the ram. There are exceptional situations where you do not want a huge hash table (for instance, if a program clears its hash between moves (such as CM does) then you do not want gigantic hash for blitz games.) Normally, the more the merrier.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.